Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

“We have no reason to believe 5G is safe”

blogs.scientificamerican.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 613 posts

Re: “We have no reason to believe 5G is safe”

#371

Post by flatline »

djsumdog wrote: post #345
javagram wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> At the same time, everybody seems to accept that the chance of getting cancer in your lifetime has risen to about one in three for men and one in five for women. And nobody knows why. However everybody who points to a possible answer is shot down without much investigation. Sad, really. Plentiful nutrition which has led to 90% of the population of the USA being overweight, obese, or overfat is another potential cul…

It's anecdotal, but a friend of mine with cancer switched to a keto diet and he had one tumor shrink, to the point where his doctor said they could (and should) now operate on it. The large increase in sugar and starch in our diet does contribute to fast growing cancer cells and there are studies that link being overweight/obesity with cancer. We weren't this fat decades ago. Some may blame more office work, but the…

I know a few people who have lost a lot of weight on Atkins/keto. I think they are successful diets because they provide bright-line rules for people to follow, but they are also extreme and potentially dangerous. None of them could maintain those diets long-term because they developed things like kidney pain. Caloric restriction, eating a good balance of fat/carbs/protein, laying off saturated fats, sugar, and booze, will fix 95% of people's dietary problems, but for people with weight/eating issues the middle ground is often just too difficult a path to tread.

Re: “We have no reason to believe 5G is safe”

#372

Post by Guph »

BurnGpuBurn wrote: post #90

I'm amazed at how many people here actually decline to click on the links in the article, which would guide one to a large list of scientific publications, with links to the original publications themselves. Yet they are very ready to call "more than 240 scientists who have published peer-reviewed research on the biologic and health effects of nonionizing electromagnetic fields" "wackos" or "cranks with a PhD", call…

Click links in the article? I feel accomplished with the fact I read the article....

I think the push to make these scientist seam like wackos, is all the money loss for the new tech(and even existing tech)

Oh, and more important than the studies is who is doing them and who is funding them.

Re: “We have no reason to believe 5G is safe”

#373

Post by posterboy »

scotty79 wrote: post #354
dnautics wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's plenty of ways that non-ionizing radiation can result in increased cancer rates. For example, they can induce currents in the DNA (DNA is s molecular wire) which might jam the base excision repair system and prevent it from detecting DNA damage (which is a redox-driven process). What's even scarier is that this sort of an effect will not be found in a standard Ames test and also is unlikely to be found in hig…

Maybe, possibly, but does this potential mechanism have any impact on our huge, complex, self-righting bodies, that every hour successfully defend from onslaught of scores of adversarial microorganisms and their chemical warfare targeted at us and each other and environmental factors like background ionizing radiation and completely natural toxins that we breath in and choose to ingest and our bodies own complexity t…

Aren't some forms of cancer also overreactions by the imune system? Some kind of Leukemia comes from phagocytes, I just read in another thread this morning

Re: “We have no reason to believe 5G is safe”

#374

Post by landcoctos »

Someone1234 wrote: post #103
k__ wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As far as I know the exposure is a bit like a bell curve. Right besides the tower you're in a blind spot, then it gets more intense as you move out of the blind spot and then it gets lower as you move further away.

5G requires more towers, closer to their end users. To quote the article: > 5G will require cell antennas every 100 to 200 meters, exposing many people to millimeter wave radiation. 5G also employs new technologies (e.g., active antennas capable of beam-forming; phased arrays; massive inputs and outputs, known as MIMO) which pose unique challenges for measuring exposures.

My City has them or they are under permitting for "towers" (of 30 feet or so) on nearly every block. Some right next to residences, daycares, schools, offices, etc.

Re: “We have no reason to believe 5G is safe”

#375

Post by tyfon »

ajsnigrutin wrote: post #257
tyfon wrote: post #94

5G has been paused in Brussels [1] already due to the companies inability to prove it is safe. The energy output of 5G antennas is apparently higher than 4G and higher than their current laws allow. [1] https://www.brusselstimes.com/brussels/55052/radiation-conce...

How the hell do you prove it's safe? Try proving carrots are safe. This is just some youtuber soccer moms spreading FUD.

The normal way to do it is to conduct a long term study with control and test subjects. Carrots have been studied for a long time, as long as you consume them in moderate amounts they are safe but in large amounts you can get all sorts of issues. It's probably the same way with 5G radiation but we don't know yet.

And I don't think the government of Belgium consists entirely of youtube soccer moms but there are probably some of them :)

Re: “We have no reason to believe 5G is safe”

#376

Post by javagram »

GhettoMaestro wrote: post #301
javagram wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> At the same time, everybody seems to accept that the chance of getting cancer in your lifetime has risen to about one in three for men and one in five for women. And nobody knows why. However everybody who points to a possible answer is shot down without much investigation. Sad, really. Plentiful nutrition which has led to 90% of the population of the USA being overweight, obese, or overfat is another potential cul…

> Plentiful nutrition which has led to 90% of the population of the USA being overweight, obese, or overfat is another potential culprit. Yeah I’m gonna need some data to believe that one. 90% obese / overweight? I’m calling bullshit.

https://torontosun.com/2017/07/25/90-of-us-men-are-overfat-a...

Edit: I should have said adults in the parent post though, this statistic doesn’t apply to kids.

Re: “We have no reason to believe 5G is safe”

#379

Post by posterboy »

The mantra of radiation safety is reduce the risk.

In that sense, an improvement in the energetic profile is potentially helpful.

An xray or a plain ride is completely fine, but pilots as well as patience have some upper limits. xray is hard alpha radiation, but do you know how xrays are created?

Re: “We have no reason to believe 5G is safe”

#380

Post by thrower123 »

BurnGpuBurn wrote: post #90

I'm amazed at how many people here actually decline to click on the links in the article, which would guide one to a large list of scientific publications, with links to the original publications themselves. Yet they are very ready to call "more than 240 scientists who have published peer-reviewed research on the biologic and health effects of nonionizing electromagnetic fields" "wackos" or "cranks with a PhD", call…

People live too long, and don't die of stuff like pneumonia or tuberculosis or syphilis or yellow fever much anymore.

Over a long enough time span, your probability of getting some form of cancer goes to 100%. Probably more like 200% or 300%, since there are so many types that they can cut out or beat back relatively successfully these days, at least until you get too old and decrepit.

Post reply on HN